On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:31:09 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


I think the big problem was our European culture did not prepare us for
war with Asians who did not have that gentlemanly war ethic Europe had.
Europeans used to fight all the time but it was a very orderly thing
that they could start and stop with a piece of paper. Most of the royal
families were so inbred that it was cousins fighting each other anyway.
Unfortunately we have some of the same problems getting a grip on our
middle east adventures today.

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look at the "ethnic
cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War, the Holocaust, or even the Russian-
German battles of WWII, none were very gentlemanly.

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own. We have all heard of the
Malmedy Massacre, but how many have heard of the American reprisal, Chenogne. or the
Starvation at Remagen, and we were far from the most brutal.

On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:





On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day

That is if he was licky. they may have tortured him for about a week
first.

On Nov 4, 11:14 pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, wrote:





On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:

I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.

You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.

I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day

That is if he was licky. they may have tortured him for about a week
first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Lucky*

sorry

wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:53:35 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:15:43 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


I'm not sure I buy European culture had a "gentlemanly war ethic". Look
at the "ethnic cleansing" of the Balkans, the uncivil Spanish Civil War,
the Holocaust, or even the Russian- German battles of WWII, none were
very gentlemanly.
You are talking about people who were not part of the European "royal
families". Even with your examples there is still little comparison to
the things that happened to the people who the Japanese conquered.
European wars have little to compare to the rape of Nanking, the forced
prostitution of Korean women, sword practice on allied prisoners and the
bayonetting of babies by the jap troops. Europe also never really saw
anything like the Kamakazi.
I'm not disputing the barbarity of Asian wars. The Japanese were incredibly brutal, as was Pol
Pot, the Chinese Nationalists (Yellow River Flood), etc. I was disputing the "gentlemanly"
character of the European. Because of our predominately European heritage, many of the
European atrocities have been glossed over, including our own.

I think the reason I feel this way was my father was a POW in WWII.
The Germans picked him up on the battlefield, severely wounded and
unable to walk, They put him in a hospital and saved his life. Again
wounded (his second purple heart) while running from our allies, the
russians, to get back to the American lines they again spared his life
when he could not move on his own,

The japs would have killed him the first day.

Yes, the Germans were very admirable adversaries during World War II,
especially when they were killing millions of Jews, Gypsies,
homosexuals, and the mentally ill. Not brutally, of course, but with the
greatest of care and love.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:


I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or even
born) at the time.

Obviously, nor can we say, with any certainty, that the Japanese would have surrendered
without the use of A-bombs. However, forty years after the war, their plans to defend against
the invasion were declassified. If they were implemented, they definitely would have cost a
major number of American lives.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../downfall.html

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:51:40 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:


I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or even
born) at the time.

Obviously, nor can we say, with any certainty, that the Japanese would have surrendered
without the use of A-bombs. However, forty years after the war, their plans to defend against
the invasion were declassified. If they were implemented, they definitely would have cost a
major number of American lives.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../downfall.html


I always thought the Germans were far more deserving of having a couple
of nukes dropped on their cities, but the European war ended before that
could happen.

On Nov 4, 3:47 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



Some people just won't beleive that, no matter how it came out. We are
the bad guys here, always making the wrong decisions after being
attacked and treated like animals... stupid us...

Now, just like then, the best way to support the troops is to let em'
win... and that's never pretty.

You just said a mouthful.

War is hell. Avoid it if you can, but pull out all the stops if you can't.

Eisboch

Pull out all the stops?? Hell even the cowboy in the White House
doesn't think like that! We have the capability and armament to
vaporize any country in the world that we wish. So, who first?

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:33:05 -0500, HK wrote:


I always thought the Germans were far more deserving of having a couple
of nukes dropped on their cities, but the European war ended before that
could happen.

I don't understand that thought. I don't think the Japanese were "deserving" of being nuked.
It was about winning a war, with the fewest American casualties. Nuclear weapons kill quite a
few undeserving. They are quite indiscriminate. Personally, I wish we hadn't used nuclear
weapons, but, unfortunately, I think it might have been the right decision at the time.

On Nov 4, 11:35?am, wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:00:20 -0800, Chuck Gould

wrote:
So Douglas MacArthur cannot be counted among those who were *morally*
opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, only among those who claim to
have felt, back in 1945, that using nuclear weapons on Japan was not
*strategically* necessary to force a Japanese surrender.
In fact, he claims to have thought that Japan would have surrendered
weeks before the bomb was dropped (and of course that event would have
saved American lives as well) if we had been flexible enough to allow
them to keep the Emperor in place.

One of the many shoulda, coulda, wouldas, and what-ifs of discussing
history. :-)

We still had the problem of convincing the Japanese army they were
beat.
They had been raised with the "no surrender" ethic and without the
horrible spectre of the A bombs I am not sure we would have been
successful in getting them to stop fighting.

You may be right. Or not- from the aspect that these troops were so
loyal to the Emperor that they would follow his orders to use suicide
tactics in battle. Why would an army that valued blind obedience not
lay down its arms when ordered to do so by the same Emperor?
Not having been there in the day, I don't know.

I'm only remarking on what Douglas MacArthur said his opinion was at
that time. Somehow, I am foolish enough to place a very high
credibilty in the opinions of professional military commanders when it
comes to matters of specific strategy to win a war. Even when they are
wrong, at least they are operating in their area of expertise- unlike
civilian CIC's, congressmen, talk show hosts, and everybody else who
tries to run a war from an armchair. :-)